Based on the wackiest version of the longstanding conspiracy theory that the plays of Shakespeare were secretly written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Anonymous is both less entertaining and less plausible than the rest of Emmerich's films, including the ones about aliens and giant lizards.

It was 'controversial' at the time, in the sense that everyone who knew anything about Shakespeare both ridiculed and denounced it, especially its attempts to market itself via 'information packs' provided to schools.

In the process of telling his dreary, plotless, and confusing shaggy dog story, Emmerich encourages some of the finest Shakespearean actors of our time to make utter fools of themselves. Not that some of them need all that much encouragement. The whole thing manages to be simultaneously totally insane, quasi-fascistic, and profoundly dull... which is quite a feat, in its way.

None of us were terribly impressed, it's fair to say. But, in between Jack galloping off on his hobby horse for uncomfortably long stretches of time, we also delve into some of the interesting history and politics concerning Shakespeare, Anti-Statfordianism, and conspiracy theories generally.

Contested Will by James Shapiro. Brilliantly discusses the 'Authorship Question', not so much in terms of its actual claims (though Shapiro does address them) but rather as a phenomenon in itself, populated by fascinating people and deserving of study in its own right. Shapiro develops many insights about scholarship, history, literature, and politics.Shakespeare, In Fact by Irvin Leigh Matus. A legendary work of factual analysis. Forensic, witty, and merciless.

If you enter anything in this field your comment will be treated as spam

Recaptcha

Comment deleted
10 months, 1 week ago

Comment deleted
9 months ago

prandeamus
10 months, 2 weeks ago

I found Bryson's book very amusing, as his work usually is. He makes a very common sense point that that the we know very little about most average people in the the Tudor/Stuart period. The only reason we have the six signatures and a cross-reference to, say, the Mountjoy case, is because of obsessive research. We have equally as many gaps for Greene, Jonson and most of the King's men. Far fewer modern writers feel the need to make Jonson a subject of conspiracy theories. Marlowe comes close, but let's be honest, fewer people know who he was.

I find it fascinating that the true authorship question even exists. One guy, about whom we know frustratingly little except a body of plays and poetry, "obviously" couldn't be the author. It must have been some other guy about whom we know very little. Except, usually, that the other guy was posh. The fact that anyone cares enough to make a case at all is snobbery writ large, a belief that a middle-class bloke of average means from a Midlands market town obviously could not be a poetic talent.

If you enter anything in this field your comment will be treated as spam

Recaptcha

Ben Knaak
10 months, 2 weeks ago

The amusing thing about anti-Stratfordians compared to most other flavors of truther is that they invert the usual dynamic of the popular conspiracy theory. Usually it's the Man (the Jews, if it's a right wing conspiracy theory) who are pulling the wool over our eyes, trying to keep us down by hiding the truth. But for anti-Stratfordians, the Man is (for the first and only time in all of history) being unfairly denied credit for something by a commoner. *We* are the ones keeping the Man down. (Or, in the versions where [Insert Favored Author Here] is himself responsible for the deception, the Man did a jolly good job of tricking us plebs and we should all applaud his noble and modest act).

Of course, that doesn't make for a very good underdog story, so there's also a conspiracy of well-heeled academia who willfully refuse to see the truth.

If you enter anything in this field your comment will be treated as spam

Recaptcha

Comment deleted
10 months, 1 week ago

Comment deleted
10 months, 1 week ago

Aylwin
10 months, 1 week ago

My favourite aspect of anti-Strat silliness is the self-collapsing logic of the basic premise: "This lowly yokel had none of the right educational credentials to have written these erudite plays, so therefore someone must have chosen him as a suitable front-man to pretend to have written them!"

Er...

Truth is often stranger than fiction, whereas a con has to be plausible.

If you enter anything in this field your comment will be treated as spam

Recaptcha

Comment deleted
10 months, 1 week ago

Comment deleted
10 months ago

Daru
10 months ago

hadn't gotten around to listening to your podcast yet, but I will now. One of the things that made me laugh out loud (in shock!) was the fact the film-makers had seen it as necessary to get Derek Jacobi speechifying to us about the 'reality' of things - I had until then no idea he was an anti-Stratfordian and it did have the effect of undermining my love for him a bit.